Blog

The withdrawal of Yang Guang (Sunshine) from public view with a bout of colic, just weeks after his long flight from China with Tian Tian (Sweetie) as part of a controversial ‘rent a panda’ programme, is a cause for concern we all share but must be of particular worry for the powers that be at Edinburgh Zoo.

Should anything more serious happen to the animals at the centre of this ill-advised scheme then the future of the zoo could be in doubt.

With 10 years costs of more than £7 million pounds (what could that do for wildlife conservation and habitat protection around the world) and no guarantee that visitor numbers will receive a desperately-needed boost (they were down by 15% in the last reported year), the zoo may yet rue the day.

Few zoos that have rented pandas in this way report a happy experience, either from a visitor number or financial point of view.

Our immediate concerns must be for Yang Guang’s welfare. Is his painful discomfort a result of the change in climate, the new food supply, heightened levels of stress? More fundamentally, why was this project ever undertaken in the first place?

Blogging off

Will

PS You may have seen the BBC Natural World documentary highlighting the plight of the slow loris following a viral video on Youtube. It seems the video is fuelling the illegal pet trade and putting the endangered species at risk.

There is a petition calling for Youtube to remove the video here

Edinburgh Zoo predicts up to 2 million more visitors over the next 10 years, following the arrival of 2 Giant Pandas ‘Sweetie’ and ‘Sunshine’ from China.

But will it all be financial ‘sweetness and light’ as the zoo hopes - or are there hard financial lessons to be learned from the past?

“We are not aware of any revenue coming in associated with our pandas. It is a common misconception about keeping pandas.” Christina Simmons San Diego Zoo. The Daily Record January 30^th 2011

“The four zoos (Washington, Atlanta, Memphis and San Diego) collectively spent $33 million more on pandas from 2000 to 2003 than they received in revenue from exhibiting them.” Washington Post August 2005

‘One reason zoos hope for births is monetary: “It helps us allay some of these costs”. Donald Lindberg San Diego Panda Conservation Team. Washington Post 2005

“It was astonishing too see, in most cases, how much more it was costing the institutions that [the panda exhibits] were bringing in.” David Towne. Giant Panda Foundation. National Geographic News 2006

“The loan agreements, most spanning ten years, have become a financial headache for the Nation’s zoo” National Geographic News March 2006

At Zoo Atlanta visitation levels shot up by 60%when pandas Lun Lun (femail) and Yang Yang (males) first arrived in 1999. After a few years, though, the crowds usually dwindle while costs remain high” National Geographic News March 2006

“For Edinburgh Zoo the pandas are a godsend after the most difficult period in its 102 year history. Last year, the zoo lost £1.5m, saw its visitor numbers slump 15% to just under 550,000 and had to be rescued with a £2m bank loan; while this year it has seen directors suspended for alleged misconduct. One was exonerated and reinstated, one was dismissed and its previous chief executive left”. The Guardian December 4^th 2011

Pandaesia: (Noun) A rare but serious affliction which sporadically affects millions of people generally in countries which have temporarily imported Giant Pandas from China as part of a vastly expensive ‘loan agreement’ to be placed on public display and commercially exploited for uncertain objectives. Often linked to panda-monium (Noun), a form of mass hysteria surrounding the arrival of said Giant Pandas (see recent outbreak in Edinburgh, Scotland – Dec 2011).

Usually accompanied by sounds of ‘oooh’ and ‘aaahh’. Both afflictions can, on rare occasions, lead to a panda-emic (Noun) where up to a million people misguidedly move en masse to the captive facility displaying the Giant Pandas in the often forlorn hope of witnessing captive-bred panda cubs (see pandalusional), not realising that these extremely rare births do little to enhance the conservation of the species which has doubled in number in its native China in the last 20 years. All such Giant Panda-related activities are usually associated with high level diplomatic interventions, ministerial photo-opportunities and even the endorsement of members of the Royal Family.

Fortunately these conditions subside relatively quickly after people come to their senses, following corrective information provided by organisations such as The Born Free Foundation (Noun) a UK registered charity working to keep wildlife in the wild.

After my last Rhino Blog (and the many comments – for which thanks)….. MORE RHINO NEWS!

So, a big day in Hong Kong (Monday 14th November): Customs’ officials intercepted over 758 ivory chopsticks, 127 carved ivory bracelets AND 33 rhino horns, weighing over 86 kilos. Astronomical prices and ludicrous claims that rhino horn cures cancer (from Vietnam) mean poaching pressure on wild rhino all over the world is relentless. Some say, let’s legalise the trade (particularly those who “own” rhino in southern Africa and who would stand to make millions of dollars). They contend that they could meet demand in China and that this would reduce poaching.

However, this idea is nothing new and legalisation of other high-value wildlife products in the past have completely failed to protect the species concerned. Attempts to meet the demand for ivory, for example, have been an unmitigated disaster. Since the 100 tonne ivory stockpile sale in 2009 to China and Japan, poaching levels have been distressingly high, nearly 30 tonnes of illegal ivory seized so far this year alone (so the full extent of the trade is likely to be four or five times higher), and the price of illegal ivory has shot up to around US$1,500 a kilo. No sign of demand being met there!

Pro-trade exponents claim that they can provide a sustainable supply of ‘ranched’ horn from their rhino and that this will reduce pressure on wild populations. That’s not what tiger conservationists believe. China has thousands of captive tigers whose ‘owners’ are pushing hard for the legalisation of trade (obviously to make a killing in more ways than one), again claiming that this will reduce pressure on wild tigers. However, conservation professionals and wildlife trade specialists believe that the poaching community will always target wild tigers because they are a ‘premium product’. I think that’s exactly what will happen with rhino.

Two measures are urgently needed:

1. Far more effective and well-resourced rhino protection in wild rhino range States with co-ordinated intelligence gathering and law enforcement across borders; and
2. A major public re-education programme in consumer countries such as China, supported at the highest possible political level.

Last year, Vladimir Putin hosted a Tiger Summit in St Petersburg to generate the international political backing for a global mission not just to save the world’s wild tigers but to double the number of wild tigers in the next ten years or so.

What about a Rhino Summit to deliver the political muscle, financial commitment and enforcement effort to turn this situation around?

Please forward far and wide if you can!

Blogging off

Will

Dear Friends,

Sometimes I ask myself ‘what is it going to take’? What is it going to take before the world really sits up and takes notice of the often irreversible damage we are doing to our planet? Will it take the extinction of a large mammal perhaps?

Well, the rhino could be an interesting case study. Today’s news that the West African black rhino has now officially been declared extinct, combined with a recent announcement that the last Javan rhino may have been poached in 2010, alongside ongoing mass killings of white and black rhino across East and Southern Africa and serious pressure on the Indian one-horned rhino, all paint a bleak picture for the species.

Declarations by high ranking officials in Vietnam that rhino horn can “cure cancer” have been blamed for the dramatic escalation in poaching. The black market price of rhino horn is now so high it is apparently more valuable than cocaine.

What is clear to me, is that rhino range States cannot be expected to protect their rhinos on their own. Despite best efforts by many range States, the organised criminal element and sophisticated equipment of the ruthless criminals involved in the illegal trade, who undoubtedly think the value of the horn means that poaching is a lucrative business and a risk worth taking, mean that the war is being lost in many areas.

Therefore, if we are to protect the remaining rhino populations, we have to curb the demand for their horn. Experts and officials have asked Asian “consumer” countries to make a stand, declare that rhino horn is NOT a cancer cure. But so far, no dramatic, meaningful action has been taken by these consumer countries. In my view, leadership has to come from the top on this issue. When the Dalai Lama told his followers that it was no longer to acceptable to use big cat skins in religious ceremonies, the skins were burned and their use immediately stopped. When will the heads of China and Vietnam do the same for rhino?

Born Free and others are continuing to press for stronger measures to be taken by the international community, and to fight against recent (extremely worrying) calls for a legalisation of rhino horn trade, but the future is far from certain. So far this year more than 350 rhinos have been poached in South Africa alone. Which brings me back to my original question – what is it going to take before the world sits up and takes notice?

Blogging off,

Will Travers

Bringing giant pandas to Edinburgh zoo (on loan) as part of a deal costing, reputedly, £6,000,000 or more, is madness.

Spending vast sums (maybe as much as £700,000) feeding them Dutch bamboo over the next 10 years is utterly ridiculous (just think of the food miles as well).

The public have been ‘bamboozled’ into believing that for some inexplicable reason this iconic species belongs in Edinburgh – it does not! Panda conservation should take place in the wild, in China (where both giant pandas and bamboo occur naturally).

If Edinburgh has panda cash to spare, that’s where it should be invested.

Blogging off!

Will

See this article in The Independent for more.

Did you see the Louis Theroux BBC2 programme “America’s Most Dangerous Pets”?  It is still available on iPlayer for UK citizens here (until Nov 9th).

Quite frankly I feel almost unable to comment – watch it and make up your own mind!

But, coming hard on the heels of the ‘Ohio Massacre’ that took place on Wednesday 19th October where the owner of a private collection (not open to the public) of over 50 large and dangerous wild animals (lions, tigers, bears, wolves, primates) opened the cages and then shot himself – all bar six of the animals were subsequently shot by the police – now is the time for action if ever there was one. Watch the CNN report here.

Theroux’s programme confirmed in my mind that the US has lost the plot when it comes to commonsense and keeping wild animals as ‘pets’.

My only hope now is that this avalanche of latest ‘exotic pet news’ will compel law-makers in each State to review their legislative provisions and introduce, as a priority, measures to bring this bizarre, frequently cruel and highly dangerous situation to an end.  My colleagues at Born Free USA are working with the Ohio legislature to fix the state’s deficient laws and will continue to do so across the country.

As I said on CNN recently, responsible legislation should be there to protect wild animals from people, people from wild animals – and people from themselves.

Blogging off

Will

The tragic events that unfolded outside Zanesville, Ohio, USA were on a scale that is hard to imagine happening in the UK. That said, animals do escape or, as in the Zanesville incident, are deliberately let loose, from zoos, circuses and from private keepers in this country – and this often end in tragedy.

Wild animals such as the bears, tigers, lions and other “exotic” animals owned by Mr. Thompson, while not common in the UK, feature among the wild animals kept as pets by private keepers: it may come as a surprise to some that an elephant, a polar bear, dozens of big cats, many primates and other potentially dangerous wild animals are currently kept in private hands in the UK.

The main legislation that covers the private keeping of such animals is the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 . This was put in place to protect the safety of the public at a time when wild animal ownership was prevalent and high-profile (Although it was not until 2006 that equivalent regulations were put in place in Northern Ireland).  The law requires that animals of species judged to be particularly dangerous should be held securely, and licensed and inspected by their Local Authority in conjunction with a vet. To a great extent, what we have in the UK is light-years ahead of the unregulated situation in Ohio that led to the events at Zanesville; but it is widely acknowledged that there are problems with compliance and enforcement of the law in the UK, meaning that it is likely that there are many more dangerous animals in private hands than are officially licensed. Furthermore, it is possible that many incidents involving licensed and unlicensed wild animals go unreported each year in the UK.

A spokesman for the federal United States Department of Agricultre (USDA) said of Mr. Thompson’s menagerie: “Just to have them on his property … that’s not a USDA situation”. This is similar to the situation in the UK, where the licensing and inspection of such animals in private hands falls to Local Authorities, and the relevant central Government department responsible for the legislation is not directly involved and may be unaware of specific issues or the numbers of animals in kept privately across the country.

While we can hope that we may never see another massacre like that in Ohio, we should always be aware that while dangerous wild animals are kept privately or made to travel the country in circuses, it may only be a matter of time before another heartbreaking tragedy occurs in the UK. Our Government should not rest on its laurels, but look carefully at the legislation and consider whether it might not be time to end the keeping of wild animals outside licensed zoos.

Blogging off

Will

Will’s comments on this report in Saturday’s Sun newspaper concerning the hunting of lions:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3806600/Whos-the-bigger-beast.html

“Many people, including supporters of the Born Free Foundation, will find the very idea of shooting animals for sport utterly repugnant.

It is not just about numbers, although, in our view, trophy hunting is a serious threat to the future of species such as lions across much of Africa – up to 600 a year are still killed for fun.  It is a question of morals, ethics and the casual disregard for the rights of wild animals to exist without unnecessary persecution and destruction.

Many trophy hunters believe that killing animals, especially powerful wild animals, confirms their status as a member of the world’s dominant species.  More enlightened human beings see trophy hunting for what it is: the deluded, testosterone-fuelled, selfish blood lust of a small number of people for the power to take life but not the wisdom to protect, respect and admire it.

Will Travers”

I am not normally lost for words – but this time I thought Born Free’s Founder and Trustee, Virginia McKenna, said it best..

Nature’s Miracle Babies – BBC1, Pick of the Day, September 4th

“I do not doubt, for a moment, the keepers’ affection for and dedication to the animals in their care. But Miracle Babies – I think not. The babies we saw were the result of extensive involvement, supervision and interference by humans, both before and after birth and the show seemed (in the words of the Guardian review) to be little more than ‘an excuse to show lots of cute little young animals’.  It never really asked the challenging question that a subject like this should explore – now that would have been a miracle!

This is breeding wildlife in captivity for captivity.  Saving species in zoos. For what? To go where? A couple of comments at the end of the programme suggested that a wild future for these animals, or their offspring, might be a problem.  So we are talking about what philosopher Mary Midgley dismissed as ‘The Frozen Ark’ – a conservation concept that has, simply, run out of credibility.

Described in the promotional ‘blurb’ as an ‘emotional and personal journey through the world of captive breeding – working with animals on the brink of extinction’, Miracle Babies barely touched on the purpose behind all this expensive and invasive work or challenged its likelihood of success.  If this is what the future holds for wild animals it is infinitely depressing. Consider the vast sums being spent on such ‘miracles’.   What could that achieve if put towards conserving endangered species and their habitats in the wild, where they belong? Just a few weeks after the BBC announced the death of the BBC Wildlife Fund – a short-lived project that did put some money where its mouth was – Miracle Babies seems a backward step in terms of the BBC’s commitment to innovative and distinctive programming (as this series was characterised by the BBC’s Commissioning Editor for Science and Natural History, Kim Shillinglaw).

Although the presenter, Martin Hughes-Games, seemed to be in a permanent state of euphoria, perhaps he is not bothered by concrete and bars and tubes and tests, and all the rest. He told us he has made many wildlife films.  That doesn’t reassure me and makes me fear what is to come in the next programmes in this series. Although the blurb promoting ‘Miracle Babies’ said it ‘balanced earnestness and fun’, I can assure you that watching wild animals being born in zoos, and anticipating that it is there they will end their days, is not fun at all.

Virginia McKenna
Founder Trustee
Born Free Foundation”